>> ^theali:
Mmmm, good point, I should paraphrase, he was the only one that proactively shed blood to spread his religion
>> ^bmacs27:
>> ^theali:
The video is about 70% facts and 30% propaganda. If they would have stock with only the facts, it would have been a stronger message.
Mohammad is the only mainstream "prophet" who has shed blood, by his own hands, in the name of his own religion. This single fact alone, tell us everything, we need to know.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Moses dropped some water on some bitches.



Ummm... I have no problem believing Mohammad killed people with his own hands...


Moses... not so much.

For liability purposes it was the water that killed them.
>> ^bmacs27:

>> ^theali:
The video is about 70% facts and 30% propaganda. If they would have stock with only the facts, it would have been a stronger message.
Mohammad is the only mainstream "prophet" who has shed blood, by his own hands, in the name of his own religion. This single fact alone, tell us everything, we need to know.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Moses dropped some water on some bitches.

Mmmm, good point, I should paraphrase, he was the only one that proactively shed blood to spread his religion

>> ^bmacs27:

>> ^theali:
The video is about 70% facts and 30% propaganda. If they would have stock with only the facts, it would have been a stronger message.
Mohammad is the only mainstream "prophet" who has shed blood, by his own hands, in the name of his own religion. This single fact alone, tell us everything, we need to know.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Moses dropped some water on some bitches.

>> ^theali:

The video is about 70% facts and 30% propaganda. If they would have stock with only the facts, it would have been a stronger message.
Mohammad is the only mainstream "prophet" who has shed blood, by his own hands, in the name of his own religion. This single fact alone, tell us everything, we need to know.


Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Moses dropped some water on some bitches.

Libertarians like voluntarism? Speak for you and myself maybe, but like religous people, leave out the masses of libertarians who do not like to volunteer.

You said, "...reasonable enough to make choices for themselves..." And then you said, "...I think they knowingly make bad decisions..." Wow, is that insane or what? Reasonable would mean they make bad decisions based on incorrect info but try to make the right choices. Unreasonable means they just f-ing do it regardless.

And lastly, many items corn-based are not soda products. It is a food that goes into many products---including the making of corn on the cob. I would agree with this video 100% if corn only made fucktose corn syrup, as I call it. But corn does not just make fucktose... Still, I agree with this video 95%! I want these bailouts, handouts, or cornjobs to end!

>> ^blankfist:
@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since April 27th, 2007" href="http://videosift.com/member/chilaxe">chilaxe, Libertarians don't like meritocracy. Libertarians like voluntarism. That is, they want people to do whatever they want as long as they don't hurt others.
I disagree that the masses aren't reasonable enough to make choices for themselves. I think they knowingly make bad decisions because the positive aspects of those decisions are higher than the negatives, or they make bad decisions because of other circumstances like comfort or the notion of getting ahead quickly, etc. Whatever the reason, people don't need an intelligent society designer guiding them. Common sense is enough to tell you breathing smoke isn't particularly healthy.
And cigarettes aren't 100% bad for you. If you mean they are damaging to health, well certainly that's true, but so is metabolizing food as it causes cell damage and just about everything else we do. But cigarettes don't automatically cause diseases like cancer or emphysema, and they don't necessarily cause health problems that require medical attention. In fact a lot of that is probably genetic. This is anecdotal, I know, but my grandmother smoked every day of her life and just recently passed away at 94. She also ate greasy foods probably with loads of trans fats.

"Also, the more controlled society becomes, the more people get uncomfortable with it, so it doesn't seem like the modern world is very likely to experience a slippery slope 50 years down the road based on small increments of increased control that make sense in the present day."

@chilaxe, Libertarians don't like meritocracy. Libertarians like voluntarism. That is, they want people to do whatever they want as long as they don't hurt others.

I disagree that the masses aren't reasonable enough to make choices for themselves. I think they knowingly make bad decisions because the positive aspects of those decisions are higher than the negatives, or they make bad decisions because of other circumstances like comfort or the notion of getting ahead quickly, etc. Whatever the reason, people don't need an intelligent society designer guiding them. Common sense is enough to tell you breathing smoke isn't particularly healthy.

And cigarettes aren't 100% bad for you. If you mean they are damaging to health, well certainly that's true, but so is metabolizing food as it causes cell damage and just about everything else we do. But cigarettes don't automatically cause diseases like cancer or emphysema, and they don't necessarily cause health problems that require medical attention. In fact a lot of that is probably genetic. This is anecdotal, I know, but my grandmother smoked every day of her life and just recently passed away at 94. She also ate greasy foods probably with loads of trans fats.

"Also, the more controlled society becomes, the more people get uncomfortable with it, so it doesn't seem like the modern world is very likely to experience a slippery slope 50 years down the road based on small increments of increased control that make sense in the present day."

What a waste of time. Makes it easier for rationalists to get ahead in life, I suppose.

>> ^NetRunner:
@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since May 3rd, 2010" href="http://videosift.com/member/Lawdeedaw">Lawdeedaw I guess my point is that if you lose your job or have to take a massive paycut, that's not the time to prioritize paying down your credit card debt or try to get ahead on your mortgage payments.
You certainly don't cut spending on things that will negatively impact your future growth potential like public schooling and transportation infrastructure, simply because of a temporary drop in income.


Me and you agree in principle once again and I understand exactly what you are saying (You know you are turning me more liberal everyday? Stop that, I like being a bull-headed republigorgon!) However, I think my point stands firm in principle too; when else would you make severe cuts besides when you need to make those cuts the most? I think there are 500 more areas better suited for cuts than roads and such, and I am sure you do to. Those issues aside, there is a disturbing attitude on both sides of politics that is simple dangerous... Here is an example, although I do not store specifics because I am far to busy with three kids to raise to remember everything... I simply remember my underwear, brush teeth, and the occasional shower...

Gates is shutting down a base of 5K+ employees and is phasing out top level civilians and field officers in the military. And what do the repubs and democrats complain about? "The death-blow" it will bring to the counties that rely on the 5K+ workers for their economies...

This argument becomes perpetual on every dime America spends when one side never relents to the other side's equal vehement arguments about spending...

@Lawdeedaw I guess my point is that if you lose your job or have to take a massive paycut, that's not the time to prioritize paying down your credit card debt or try to get ahead on your mortgage payments.

You certainly don't cut spending on things that will negatively impact your future growth potential like public schooling and transportation infrastructure, simply because of a temporary drop in income.

Seventh-ded. I've been on the edge of (and lost rank due to) pretty much every type of imaginable scenario - the change that increased requirements for levels, having a dupe discovered moments after making gold, having a video deaded, etc. It's incredibly discouraging when it happens and I can't see ruby ever being something to lust after when (at that number of sifted videos) it seems like I would constantly fight to maintain my rank, let alone get ahead.

Why do I even want the rank in the first place? Not status. I was tired of seeing dupes, deads, and being largely unable to participate in the community maintenance of the site. Ruby would be nice in order to do channel work, but gold at least finally lets me invoke most of the commands.

Edit (clarification): I understand why many of these rules were initially put in place and am not trying to argue that, say, publishing dupes should garner star points. Just saying very generally that any time points are lost, it's a discouragement from participation (in a game theory kind of way).

>> ^Throbbin:
I have very little respect for women who walk around looking like Trollops. I met my spouse in college, and her roommate would wear layer upon layer of foundation - so much so she looked like a wax statue. Then the copious amounts of black eye shadow, bright red lipstick, and then spray herself with a cloud of cheap perfume.
Needless to say, it was nasty. One wonders why they do this - do they think it'll help them get ahead? Nymphomania? Low self-esteem? Were they taught this by their mothers? Sisters? Television?
When I'm walking around a mall, I see these types of women around - the kind that see you, size you up, make eye contact, and then get insulted when you don't shower them with attention. When this happens, if I have a male friend nearby, I usually tap my buddy on the shoulder, point at them, and laugh so that they can see me.
May not be nice, but I figure it's good for them in the long run.



Comercial society translates well with the average, low self esteem woman. Have you seen American Beauty? "At least I'm not average!" "Yes, yes you are." Paraphrase...

I have very little respect for women who walk around looking like Trollops. I met my spouse in college, and her roommate would wear layer upon layer of foundation - so much so she looked like a wax statue. Then the copious amounts of black eye shadow, bright red lipstick, and then spray herself with a cloud of cheap perfume.

Needless to say, it was nasty. One wonders why they do this - do they think it'll help them get ahead? Nymphomania? Low self-esteem? Were they taught this by their mothers? Sisters? Television?

When I'm walking around a mall, I see these types of women around - the kind that see you, size you up, make eye contact, and then get insulted when you don't shower them with attention. When this happens, if I have a male friend nearby, I usually tap my buddy on the shoulder, point at them, and laugh so that they can see me.

May not be nice, but I figure it's good for them in the long run.

That's simply because many of the people, even the average joes, idolise the all mighty dollar. The next time you see a manager take credit for one of their staff's work, or a colleague screw over another workmate to get ahead, convert that mentality to huge corporations. If anything, it would be easier as a corporate bigwig because they are insulated against the retribution they should rightly receive for their malfeasance (well, until they kill 11 people and create one of the biggest environmental disasters in history, I guess we'll see what happens).

You can't change the corporate macro culture if many citizens (particularly the ones that actually bother to vote or lobby their representatives) subscribe to the same values and ethics, that being making a buck first, everything else secondary.
>> ^blankfist:

quality idea. But I really think we could do without corporations period. They have proven government regulations and restrictions on business are simply shams to embolden and strengthen the corporations by giving special privileges to the rich and shrinking the small business sector.
But we can start with revoking their charter. But before we do that, I'd like to see those fisherman and other business owners personally affected by this sue for damages. Oh silly me, like they'll ever receive what they're owed. The politicians will make sure of that.
It's also hilarious that she links to this guy. If you remember him, he's the guy who said FUCK NOAM CHOMSKY. Just had to point that out. Ahem. Quietly exiting room now.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
End result of captured regulators and centralized planning you mean. I walk into my kitchen or my bathroom and I am FILLED with industries that never really strike me as evil or corrupt by your, what I would consider, hasty generalization of capitalism. I look at my CD-rs, my desk, my toilet paper, my bathmat. I get a good price at the exact quality I want of them. The big problems, the ones where we see the most corruption and unfairness are those industries usually associated with heavy government regulation or finite resources.
The more a government gets involved with the mode and means of production the more bad laws get passed to benefit few at the cost of everyone. Looking back, I think everyone would agree that the legal monopolies that exist on phone and cable TV held us back technologically and culturally. As a result of these controls people pay higher prices to these companies. As the government gets more involved the need for companies to both protect and influence government officials for their unfair advantage. The government monopolies on things aren't any better, like the postal system, but that is really a topic for a different conversation.
So the idea that you point out of "Unless you spend a great deal of constant effort on monitoring it, your government -will- be corrupted by the ultra-rich who can offer benefits far beyond those available from any other source." is absolutely correct. The solution then, isn't MORE government regulations and oversight on the private economy.
The solution in my opinion is my like a recent sci-fi concept my friend told me about for his film school project. The best cure for a villain, is another villain. The villain in this case would be businesses. Being that the most effective person to fight large power corruption is people after that same power. Given the same resources and lack of meaningful unfair advantages, over time they mill each other out to an even level. At certain times people might get a little less for their money when companies use their established reputation to sell one over on people (I'm looking at you Toyota), but the public out lash when this is brought to light is swifter than any type of technocratic bumbling you would get from non-industry people on capital hill.
Capitalism isn't pretty. The evils of capitalism are all to clear. Someone can risk it all, and loose it all. A man could work all his life an perhaps never get ahead. Such is the risk. But the truth of the matter is capitalism is a driving force for great wealth for a great deal man more people than any type of managed economy.
The real and hardest questions I think stem from intellectual and property rights limits and restraints as it is hard to find a purely rational limit on what those should be. But ultimately, the principles of libertarianism are based in reason and not emotion or personal value. When making a system, you have to bench notions of good and bad, those are personal values of which there are 7 billion flavors. You have to start with reasonable, or unreasonable...a completely opinion-free, logical arrangement or arguments free from notions of morality or religion.


unregulated capitalism is retarded.

The fact is the more money you have the easier it gets to make more money so the ritch get richer and the pore get poorer.

Because of the way capitalism works for the rich to get richer they esentualy have to grab the wealth from the less wealthy.Because its easier for rich to make money than for the pore to make money u end up with 2% of a population being super rich and the rest with pore to average wages.


If you want a democratic safe clean caring society you will need to regulate capitalism , Tax the super ritch and do projects that help educate the pore or those with less money , esentualy redistabute the welth.

alternatively you would have to fundamentally change capitalism which ultimately would be regulation again.

Pure capitalism could only ever work if everyone started from a blank slate and a equal footing and in reality that would never happen.

End result of captured regulators and centralized planning you mean. I walk into my kitchen or my bathroom and I am FILLED with industries that never really strike me as evil or corrupt by your, what I would consider, hasty generalization of capitalism. I look at my CD-rs, my desk, my toilet paper, my bathmat. I get a good price at the exact quality I want of them. The big problems, the ones where we see the most corruption and unfairness are those industries usually associated with heavy government regulation or finite resources.

The more a government gets involved with the mode and means of production the more bad laws get passed to benefit few at the cost of everyone. Looking back, I think everyone would agree that the legal monopolies that exist on phone and cable TV held us back technologically and culturally. As a result of these controls people pay higher prices to these companies. As the government gets more involved the need for companies to both protect and influence government officials for their unfair advantage. The government monopolies on things aren't any better, like the postal system, but that is really a topic for a different conversation.

So the idea that you point out of "Unless you spend a great deal of constant effort on monitoring it, your government -will- be corrupted by the ultra-rich who can offer benefits far beyond those available from any other source." is absolutely correct. The solution then, isn't MORE government regulations and oversight on the private economy.

The solution in my opinion is my like a recent sci-fi concept my friend told me about for his film school project. The best cure for a villain, is another villain. The villain in this case would be businesses. Being that the most effective person to fight large power corruption is people after that same power. Given the same resources and lack of meaningful unfair advantages, over time they mill each other out to an even level. At certain times people might get a little less for their money when companies use their established reputation to sell one over on people (I'm looking at you Toyota), but the public out lash when this is brought to light is swifter than any type of technocratic bumbling you would get from non-industry people on capital hill.

Capitalism isn't pretty. The evils of capitalism are all to clear. Someone can risk it all, and loose it all. A man could work all his life an perhaps never get ahead. Such is the risk. But the truth of the matter is capitalism is a driving force for great wealth for a great deal man more people than any type of managed economy.

The real and hardest questions I think stem from intellectual and property rights limits and restraints as it is hard to find a purely rational limit on what those should be. But ultimately, the principles of libertarianism are based in reason and not emotion or personal value. When making a system, you have to bench notions of good and bad, those are personal values of which there are 7 billion flavors. You have to start with reasonable, or unreasonable...a completely opinion-free, logical arrangement or arguments free from notions of morality or religion.